Filetype PDF | Posted on 14 Oct 2022 | 4 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
280x Filetype PDF File size 0.08 MB Source: www.brown.edu
E000079 endogenous growth
Endogenous growth theory explains long-run growth as emanating from
economic activities that create new technological knowledge. This article
sketches the outlines of the theory, especially the Schumpeterian variety,
and briefly describes how the theory has evolved in response to empirical
discoveries.
Endogenous growth is long-run economic growth at a rate determined by
forces that are internal to the economic system, particularly those forces
governing the opportunities and incentives to create technological knowl-
edge.
In the long run the rate of economic growth, as measured by the growth
rate of output per person, depends on the growth rate of total factor
productivity (TFP), which is determined in turn by the rate of technological
progress. The neoclassical growth theory of Solow (1956) and Swan (1956)
assumes the rate of technological progress to be determined by a scientific
process that is separate from, and independent of, economic forces.
Neoclassical theory thus implies that economists can take the long-run
growth rate as given exogenously from outside the economic system.
Endogenous growth theory challenges this neoclassical view by proposing
channels through which the rate of technological progress, and hence the
long-run rate of economic growth, can be influenced by economic factors. It
starts from the observation that technological progress takes place through
innovations, in the form of new products, processes and markets, many of
which are the result of economic activities. For example, because firms learn
from experience how to produce more efficiently, a higher pace of economic
activity can raise the pace of process innovation by giving firms more
production experience. Also, because many innovations result from R&D
expenditures undertaken by profit-seeking firms, economic policies with
respect to trade, competition, education, taxes and intellectual property can
influence the rate of innovation by affecting the private costs and benefits of
doing R&D.
AKtheory
ThefirstversionofendogenousgrowththeorywasAKtheory,whichdidnot
make an explicit distinction between capital accumulation and technological
progress. In effect it lumped together the physical and human capital whose
accumulation is studied by neoclassical theory with the intellectual capital
that is accumulated when innovations occur. An early version of AK theory
was produced by Frankel (1962), who argued that the aggregate production
function can exhibit a constant or even increasing marginal product of
capital. This is because, when firms accumulate more capital, some of that
increased capital will be the intellectual capital that creates technological
progress, and this technological progress will offset the tendency for the
marginal product of capital to diminish.
In the special case where the marginal product of capital is exactly
constant, aggregate output Y is proportional to the aggregate stock of capital
K:
Y ¼AK ð1Þ
where A is a positive constant. Hence the term AK theory.
2 endogenous growth
According to AK theory, an economys long-run growth rate depends on
its saving rate. For example, if a fixed fraction s of output is saved and there
is a fixed rate of depreciation d, the rate of aggregate net investment is:
dK ¼sY dK
dt
which along with (1) implies that the growth rate is given by:
g 1 dY ¼ 1 dK ¼ sAd.
Y dt K dt
Hence an increase in the saving rate s will lead to a permanently higher
growth rate.
Romer(1986) produced a similar analysis with a more general production
structure, under the assumption that saving is generated by intertemporal
utility maximization instead of the fixed saving rate of Frankel. Lucas (1988)
also produced a similar analysis focusing on human capital rather than
physical capital; following Uzawa (1965) he explicitly assumed that human
capital and technological knowledge were one and the same.
Innovation-based theory
AK theory was followed by a second wave of endogenous growth theory,
generally known as innovation-based growth theory, which recognizes that
intellectual capital, the source of technological progress, is distinct from
physical and human capital. Physical and human capital are accumulated
through saving and schooling, but intellectual capital grows through
innovation.
One version of innovation-based theory was initiated by Romer (1990),
who assumed that aggregate productivity is an increasing function of the
degree of product variety. In this theory, innovation causes productivity
growth by creating new, but not necessarily improved, varieties of products.
It makes use of the Dixit–Stiglitz–Ethier production function, in which final
output is produced by labour and a continuum of intermediate products:
1a Z A a
Y ¼L 0 xðiÞ di; 0oao1 ð2Þ
whereListheaggregatesupplyoflabour(assumedtobeconstant),x(i)isthe
flow input of intermediate product i, and A is the measure of different
intermediate products that are available for use. Intuitively, an increase in
product variety, as measured by A, raises productivity by allowing society to
spread its intermediate production more thinly across a larger number of
activities, each of which is subject to diminishing returns and hence exhibits a
higher average product when operated at a lower intensity.
The other version of innovation-based growth theory is the Schumpeter-
ian theory developed by Aghion and Howitt (1992) and Grossman and
Helpman (1991). (Early models were produced by Segerstrom, Anant and
Dinopoulos, 1990, and Corriveau, 1991). Schumpeterian theory focuses on
quality-improving innovations that render old products obsolete, through
the process that Schumpeter (1942) called creative destruction.
In Schumpeterian theory aggregate output is again produced by a
continuum of intermediate products, this time according to:
endogenous growth 3
1a Z 1 1a a
Y ¼L 0 AðiÞ xðiÞ di, ð3Þ
where now there is a fixed measure of product variety, normalized to unity,
and each intermediate product i has a separate productivity parameter A(i).
Each sector is monopolized and produces its intermediate product with a
constant marginal cost of unity. The monopolist in sector i faces a demand
1a
curve given by the marginal product: a ðAðiÞL=xðiÞÞ of that intermediate
input in the final sector. Equating marginal revenue (a time this marginal
product) to the marginal cost of unity yields the monopolists profit-
maximizing intermediate output:
xðiÞ¼xLAðiÞ
where x ¼ a2=ð1aÞ. Using this to substitute for each x(i) in the production
function (3) yields the aggregate production function:
Y ¼yAL ð4Þ
where y ¼ xa, and where A is the average productivity parameter:
AZ01AðiÞ di.
Innovations in Schumpeterian theory create improved versions of old
products. An innovation in sector i consists of a new version whose
productivity parameter A(i) exceeds that of the previous version by the fixed
factor g41. Suppose that the probability of an innovation arriving in sector i
over any short interval of length dt is mdt. Then the growth rate of A(i)is
()
dAðÞi 1 ðg 1Þ1 with probability mdt
¼ dt .
AiðÞ dt 0 with probability 1mdt
Therefore the expected growth rate of A(i) is:
EðgÞ¼mðg1Þ. ð5Þ
Theflowprobabilitymofaninnovationinanysectorisproportionaltothe
current flow of productivity-adjusted R&D expenditures:
m ¼ lR=A ð6Þ
where R is the amount of final output spent on R&D, and where the division
by A takes into account the force of increasing complexity. That is, as
technology advances it becomes more complex, and hence society must make
an ever-increasing expenditure on research and development just to keep
innovating at the same rate as before.
It follows from (4) that the growth rate g of aggregate output is the growth
rate of the average productivity parameter A. The law of large numbers
guarantees that g equals the expected growth rate (5) of each individual
productivity parameter. From this and (6) we have:
g ¼ðg1ÞlR=A.
From this and (4) it follows that the growth rate depends on the fraction of
GDPspent on research and development, n ¼ R=Y, according to:
g ¼ðg1ÞlyLn. ð7Þ
Thus, innovation-based theory implies that the way to grow rapidly is not
to save a large fraction of output but to devote a large fraction of output to
research and development. The theory is explicit about how R&D activities
are influenced by various policies, who gains from technological progress,
4 endogenous growth
wholoses, how the gains and losses depend on social arrangements, and how
such arrangements affect societys willingness and ability to create and cope
with technological change, the ultimate source of economic growth.
Empirical challenges
Endogenousgrowththeoryhasbeenchallengedonempiricalgrounds,butits
proponents have replied with modifications of the theory that make it
consistent with the critics evidence. For example, Mankiw, Romer and Weil
(1992), Barro and Sala-i-Martin (1992) and Evans (1996) showed, using data
from the second half of the 20th century, that most countries seem to be
converging to roughly similar long-run growth rates, whereas endogenous
growth theory seems to imply that, because many countries have different
policies and institutions, they should have different long-run growth rates.
But the Schumpeterian model of Howitt (2000), which incorporates the force
of technology transfer, whereby the productivity of R&D in one country is
enhanced by innovations in other countries, implies that all countries that
perform R&Datapositive level should converge to parallel long-run growth
paths.
The key to this convergence result is what Gerschenkron (1952) called the
advantage of backwardness; that is, the further a country falls behind the
technology frontier, the larger is the average size of innovations, because the
larger is the gap between the frontier ideas incorporated in the countrys
innovations and the ideas incorporated in the old technologies being replaced
by innovations. This increase in the size of innovations keeps raising the
laggard countrys growth rate until the gap separating it from the frontier
finally stabilizes.
Likewise, Jones (1995) has argued that the evidence of the United States
and other OECD countries since 1950 refutes the scale effect of
Schumpeterian endogenous growth theory. That is, according to the growth
equation (7) an increase in the size of population should raise long-run
growth by increasing the size of the workforce L, thus providing a larger
market for a successful innovator and inducing a higher rate of innovation.
But in fact productivity growth has remained stationary during a period
when population, and in particular the number of people engaged in R&D,
has risen dramatically. The models of Dinopoulos and Thompson (1998),
Peretto (1998) and Howitt (1999) counter this criticism by incorporating
Youngs (1998) insight that, as an economy grows, proliferation of product
varieties reduces the effectiveness of R&D aimed at quality improvement by
causing it to be spread more thinly over a larger number of different sectors.
When modified this way the theory is consistent with the observed
coexistence of stationary TFP growth and rising population, because in a
steady state the growth-enhancing scale effect is just offset by the growth-
reducing effect of product proliferation.
As a final example, early versions of innovation-based growth theory
implied, counter to much evidence, that growth would be adversely affected
by stronger competition laws, which by reducing the profits that imperfectly
competitive firms can earn ought to reduce the incentive to innovate.
However, Aghion and Howitt (1998, ch. 7) describe a variety of channels
through which competition might in fact spur economic growth. One such
channel is provided by the work of Aghion et al. (2001), who show that,
although an increase in the intensity of competition will tend to reduce the
absolute level of profits realized by a successful innovator, it will nevertheless
tend to reduce the profits of an unsuccessful innovator by even more. In this
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
